Lissa: I get them, I just don’t get my science from them.
Neither do I. But they’re a good place to start. Try reading “*When Elephants Weep.”
I thought the point of this thread is which animals make better pets, cats or dogs, not to bash the whole concept of keeping pets. People who love animals are willing to overlook inconveniences like pet hair. And if you can get used to trading coliform bacteria with your significant other, then pets’ microbes aren’t so scary, either. The unconditional love, whether we deserve it or not, makes it all worth while.
While I still prefer cats, getting used to a big dog in the house hasn’t been all that grosser, more inconvenient, or more of a pain in the ass than getting used to having a husband.
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
That poses another question. Which is better, a spuose or a pet? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE.
Well . . . my dog never looks in the fridge, directly at an item while simultaneously asking me where it is. My cat never watches football, burps, or snores loudly enough to rattle the window panes. They never ask me to do their laundry, hog the remote, or get cookie crumbs in the sheets. I can leave them for the day and not come home to their buddies and them playing cards, drinking beer and smoking cigars.
My husband doesn’t lay on the floor gazing up at me adoringly while I do no more than read. But then again, he’s never gotten fleas or dragged a dead chipmunk into the house. (To my knowledge, anyway.)
My husband doesn’t have to be under my feet every time I cook dinner. He doesn’t try to lick everything in the fridge when I put groceries away. He doesn’t stand on the back of the couch and smoosh the cushions when he wants to go outside, and he doesn’t hang from the window screens when he wants in. He isn’t constantly trying to mouth me or lick me (wait a sec, maybe that’s not something to be glad of). And he doesn’t grab my dirty socks with his mouth and run around the house making me chase him.
Meanwhile, the dog and cats don’t contribute to the income but, since there’s no animal medical insurance, their vet bills contribute to the outgo. They don’t run to the store for me when I’m too tired to go myself. They don’t help with the laundry or dishes. And while it’s fun to cuddle with them under the covers, going any further is illegal, immoral, and just plain weird.
On the other hand, the pets didn’t come with a mother-in-law, so that right there makes up for everything.
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
“When Elephants Weep?”
“When Pigs Fly.”
I think you are confusing intellect with emotion. Mammals experience a wide range of intense emotions, and this is widely documented. Emotions are an evolutionary tool that contribute to survival in a number of ways: maternal love allows for a longer period of development which is neccessary among most mammals; loyalty keeps animal hunting groups together; etc…
To think humans are the only species to have intellect and emotion is the worst kind of human egotism. The belief that animals are furry robots dictated by conditioning is a justification by our culture to support our exploitative world view. If we all believed that animals felt joy, boredom, fear, and love it might be hard to think of them as nothing more than raw materials.
Humans are the only animals with intellect. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to buttress this claim by reading the purely emotional arguments presented by the animal rights nutcases.
If you believe animals experience human emotions, or they “understand” abstract concepts, and you get your ammunition from pop-culture “scientists” on the Discovery channel et al and you choose to willfully ignore what’s actually going on when a chimp learns “sign language,” then the depths of your ignorance will never be plumbed by the likes of me. Have a nice day.
I see. Care to enlighten me, O Wise One as to exactly what an animal is thinking/feeling?
How much research have you actually done on this subject?
Would you call Carl Sagan a pop-scientist? I would reccomend that you read his book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors but I have the sneaking suspicion that you won’t read anything that you don’t agree with.
Sagan states the obvious: There is no way to prove that animals have emotions, but then again, there’s no way that I can prove that you, or anybody else, for that matter have emotions either.
It boils down to communication: I can say to you, “I am sad.” An animal cannot, and when they can, such as apes signing, we dismiss it as being too “complex.”
Sagan quotes Voltaire: “What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines befret of understanding and feeling.”
I don’t want to get into a war over this, but I have done quite a bit of research into this subject. After all that I have read, seen and heard, I believe it’s rather ignorant and egotistic to believe blindly in the notion that man is exclusively the only being capable of emotions.
Lissa: I find it interesting to note you have narrowed the topic to animal “emotions,” a subject infinitely more difficult to quantify than intellect. You yourself quoted Carl Sagan (and yes, I do consider him to have been a “pop-scientist,” in the sense he popularized certain branches of science, and his characterizations presented to the public at large did not include the large substrata of
facts discerning thinkers demand before swallowing ideas hook, line and sinker) as offering the *lack of proof * of human emotions to be a significant argument in favor of animal emotions. What tripe. Such statement are meaningless, and are the hallmarks of those who seek to further their cause with the use of syllogisms. Animal “emotions” quite rightly fall into the realm of philosophy, and I have already given one of the sources for mine - Mortimer Adler. I cited the books; have you read them? I think perhaps your “sneaking suspicion” might be a small case of the pot calling the kettle black, but, as you say, let’s not get into a war over this. As in the science of mathematics, I only need one instance of concrete disproof for a theory to negate that theory, and Adler provides that proof as least as far as intellect goes. Find out what transpires when animals communicate via sign language (hint: it has to do with signs) and then talk to me of intelligence and intellect, two very different things. Animals do not understand or communicate abstract concepts. Period.
I do not dismiss the significance of chimps signing is as “too complex,” quite the opposite. What’s going on there is perhaps too simple for your taste.
I do not equate animals with machines. Machines are inanimate.
I love it when people who disagree with my ideas but know nothing about me use words like “ignorant” and “egotistical.” To them, I say “Yo momma!”
Lissa: I find it interesting to note you have narrowed the topic to animal “emotions,” a subject infinitely more difficult to quantify than intellect. You yourself quoted Carl Sagan (and yes, I do consider him to have been a “pop-scientist,” in the sense he popularized certain branches of science, and his characterizations presented to the public at large did not include the large substrata of
facts discerning thinkers demand before swallowing ideas hook, line and sinker) as offering the *lack of proof * of human emotions to be a significant argument in favor of animal emotions. What tripe. Such statement are meaningless, and are the hallmarks of those who seek to further their cause with the use of syllogisms. Animal “emotions” quite rightly fall into the realm of philosophy, and I have already given one of the sources for mine - Mortimer Adler. I cited the books; have you read them? I think perhaps your “sneaking suspicion” might be a small case of the pot calling the kettle black, but, as you say, let’s not get into a war over this. As in the science of mathematics, I only need one instance of concrete disproof for a theory to negate that theory, and Adler provides that proof as least as far as intellect goes. Find out what transpires when animals communicate via sign language (hint: it has to do with signs) and then talk to me of intelligence and intellect, two very different things. Animals do not understand or communicate abstract concepts. Period.
I do not dismiss the significance of chimps signing is as “too complex,” quite the opposite. What’s going on there is perhaps too simple for your taste.
I do not equate animals with machines. Machines are inanimate.
I love it when people who disagree with my ideas but know nothing about me use words like “ignorant” and “egotistical.” To them, I say “Yo momma!”
To Nick:
I apologise for using the word you mentioned. It was very petty of me to become insulting. My only excuse is that this is a subject I feel strongly on.
I have never read the works of Adler. I live in a very small town, and my access to authors who are less than popular is somewhat limited, but on your recommendation, I will try to track them down.
I am basing my beliefs on four or five books I’ve read on the subject, documentaries and personal experiance with animals. I hadn’t been exposed to any that refuted my beliefs.
My admittedly poor education in a private school made the only science available to me books by Carl Sagan, and other such writers. I had never learned the basics of scienc4e, and he made difficult concepts easy for me to understand. Maybe there wasn’t a substata of facts. I sort of appreciated it.
So, again, I apologise, and admit your greater knowledge of the subject. Before this, I had thought that I was relatively well-read on it. I may still disagree with you, but I am not dismissing your point of view.
'K, Lissa. Skirmish over, no damage done. Sorry if I got heavy-handed, but I feel quite strongly on the topic, too. Hope you find the books! 
Hmmm…
A=B and B=C then A=C, right?
Cat = Harpy bitch. Aloof. Threw tantrums and “punished” those around her through behavior if she was displeased. Left crap laying around and sat imperiously on couch waiting for someone else to clean it up.
ExWife = Harpy bitch. Aloof. Threw tantrums and “punished” those around her through behavior if she was displeased. Left crap laying around and sat imperiously on couch waiting for someone else to clean it up.
Holy crap! My Ex Wife was a cat!
Regardless, I don’t like either of 'em. Cats in general, ex wife in particular.
Nickrz:
The fact that you feel strongly about this subject is plain without your saying so. That’s what I find interesting.
It is easy to understand why those of us who believe in the intelligence, emotional sophistication, and inherent value of animals become passionate about the subject, particularly when our feelings and beliefs about it are challenged. Animals are meaningful and important to us, and to see them maligned and disregarded is painful on the face of it. What makes it even more upsetting is that such attitudes are what allow the greater crimes against animals to occur: the cruel exploitation of animals for human desire, need and folly. There is a very real threat in allowing attitudes such as yours to persist and prevail: it causes real harm to beings that we value.
That said…what’s your excuse?
Why in the world is it a subject you feel so strongly about? What button is being pressed with you? What is the source of the threat here that you feel the need to take such a strong position?
It is especially fascinating that you say “I’m proud of the human brain”. Why? Did you design it? It’s something you have no control over and no responisbility for, why are you so proud of it? Everyone I ever met has one, what’s the accomplishment there? It makes about as much sense as saying: “I’m proud of the opposable thumb!”. It’s a biological advantage we can use for good or ill. Lots of perfectly good thumbs have been put to very evil uses.
I am very proud of what some people have done with their brains. I am appalled and shamed by what others have done.
You, like many people, seem to feel that the mere fact of being born with human DNA entitles people to be cruel and selfish. You want to take the credit, enjoy the benefits, and pretend that there is no responsibility to be taken.
Wrong.
Whatever your assessment of animal “intellect” (and the debate rages on; until such time as we can learn to speak their languages, all our assessments can be categorized as theory) the fact is that many of them, certainly all mammals, are capable of pain and suffering. That alone is enough that we must recognize that it is evil of us to inflict it upon them, for any reason. To do less is to be nothing more than a bully: because you are capable of beating up the little guy doesn’t make it alright for you to actually do so, no matter how creative and intellectual your justifications. (Which aren’t all that creative anyway, since they amount to this: “It’s ok for me to beat up everyone in the room, because I’m the only one who CAN”. It’s a classic logic fallacy, the latin name of which escapes me now.)
Furthermore, so far as we know, earth is the only place in a thousand galaxies to hold such a beautiful and complex diversity of life. It would be a tribute to the brains and abilities we are born with to take it upon ourselves to preserve and protect that diversity, recognizing how very precious and thrilling it is. It would be a testament to that potentially amazing brain if we could put it to use finding ways to keep the earth natural and beautiful and habitable for all living things. Instead we have people like you, so enamored of that three pounds of flesh that you think it’s ultimately the only thing that matters. Watching us destroy everything in our paths, I confess I am not nearly so impressed as you.
In my own experience, I’ve known many animals that I might throw myself in front of a train for, and people I’d tie to the tracks. The very fact of being human does not, in my opinion, confer any special value to a being. All beings are valuable, and humans are the only ones I know of that have the ability to actually make themselves LESS worthy.
And finally, just to clarify my own position: my love and appreciation of animals doesn’t mean that I am a vegetarian, or that I think any and all uses of animals are wrong. I just dont’ believe that it is ever necessary to cause animals to suffer for our needs and desires. In the case of animals as food, that is the way the world is designed. But I dont’ think a pig or cow or chicken should have to spend it’s short life utterly miserable, pumped full of drugs, barely able to move, never allowed to rest…all the charming things we do to our food animals before we eat them.
And dogs rule, cats blow. (I have 2 of each).
Stoidela, great post! I was behind you 150% right up until the end:
Are you mental?? Dogs rule, cats blow… I’ll try to remember that at 4:00 AM tomorrow when my cat is curled up next to me purring sweetly and the dog is trying to eat the blankets.
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
Gr8Kat:
Well, I just adore what someone else here had said about what dogs and cats do if they are big enough.
I love all my animals, but my dogs really love me back. I’ve met some sweet kitties that were very affectionate, but I never got the sense that it was about anything other than getting rubbed for them.
Dogs? Dogs are the embodiment of the ideal of unconditional love.
It seems to be the general concensus here that the main “problem” with dogs is that they require more from us (they will love us unconditionally even if we beat and starve them, but in order for them to be good companions that fit in, they require more) - but why should we expect to receive so much without doing anything? Cats are definitely easier than dogs, but the rewards are correspondingly thinner.
Cats are by nature solitary animals, and it shows. THey can learn to get along with other cats, dogs, with people, but it’s obvious it’s a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with them. Dogs are by nature social animals. It is critically important to their well-being to have a pack, whether that consists of just you, or you and your spouse, 3 kids, and 3 other dogs.
We are also social animals. We need our pack as well, and dogs fit right in.
I adore dogs. Their heart, intelligence, devotion. They melt me.
I suppose I’m especially sentimental about dogs these days because of my own… they will be 17 on their next birthdays. They’ve been a part of my life for a VERY long time. And they have been difficult at times, they are difficult now. But never so much that I can imagine what my life might have been without them.
My cats are 12. Also a long time. Also I love them. But…but…well, I’ve made my position clear about that.
And how old is your dog? Maybe the problem is that you haven’t put in the time to train your dog, the main reason people have dog problems. It isn’t the dogs fault, ya know. If you do your part, she WILL do hers. She just needs to understand exactly what is expected of her.
Stoidela
Nickrz:
I forgot to mention: if our superior value is all tied up with our intellect, what are your feelings about the mentally disabled? Are they just as meaningless and low as beasts? If you had a mentally disabled person and a chimp in a room and tested them both, and it was obvious that the chimp was much brighter than the disabled person, which one would then be more important?
If your answer is a knee-jerk “the person”, you have just dismantled your own argument, and you are going to have to come up with the REAL reason that “people are better”. Could it be… because you happen to be one, and it is simply a matter of sticking with your own kind? Sort of species-ist, if you will? Nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it.
Stoidela
Hrmph. Where’s Nick?